2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Monte Carlo simulation for the estimation of patient dose in rest and stress cardiac computed tomography with a 320-detector row CT scanner

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…8,16,17 It should be noted, however, that these effective doses are only gross estimates, especially for partial body exposures, and may suffer from inherent relative uncertainties of about +40% due to methodological limitations. 18,19 Current recommended models for assessing radiation risk Current cancer risk models for low-radiation exposure often use the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which assumes that the risk of cancer increases linearly with the exposure, and that the The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8,16,17 It should be noted, however, that these effective doses are only gross estimates, especially for partial body exposures, and may suffer from inherent relative uncertainties of about +40% due to methodological limitations. 18,19 Current recommended models for assessing radiation risk Current cancer risk models for low-radiation exposure often use the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which assumes that the risk of cancer increases linearly with the exposure, and that the The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, radiation dose was calculated using conversion factors, and differences in these conversion factors can lead to important differences in the results and to challenges in comparing different studies. We have provided CT radiation doses calculated with both the 0.014 and the 0.026 mSv/mGy • cm conversion factors, but other conversion factors could have been selected (28). The 0.026 mSv/mGy • cm conversion factor more accurately reflects CT radiation doses because it is based on the International Commission on Radiation Protection 103 weighting factors and a cardiac field of view (11).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Geleijns et al utilized the Philips Tomoscan LX CT with 120 kV and 333 mAs, for chest ex am i na tion with a Pb thick ness of 10 mm. The re search ers in serted TLD-100 into the Rando phan tom with out con sid er ing the re la tion ship be tween D lung and the body-weights of the examinee, yield ing a D lung of ap prox i mately 44 mSv [16,17].…”
Section: Com Par I Son Of D Lung With Other Stud Iesmentioning
confidence: 99%